Menu

Crime

These sexual assaults accusations aren’t new. They’ve always been happening. I don’t think there are more of them happening these days. I just think Trump’s election was the point where women finally said “We’re not going to take it any more.”

Do not discount how angry women are that a proud molester is in the White House.

illustration by Matt Bors

The bottom line though is that this isn’t really about sex — it’s about power.

No woman is impressed when you send her an unsolicited dick pick, or grab her without her consent, or perform a sex act in front of her. That’s not how you start a relationship. That’s how you show your power over her.

In a sense, it’s like rape, which is an act of violence more than an act of sex. It’s when the abuser treats the victim as less than human, less than deserving of respect. Yes, the abuser may be getting his (or her) jollies off, but the fact that some people get excited over abusing another against their will doesn’t make it just about sex.

The other problem is that for many generations, this was just the way things were, and few people questioned it. TV shows and movies had bosses chasing secretaries around the desk and it was played for laughs. And men grew up thinking that was just the way things worked.

But society has changed. It was never right but now people know that. And the men who refuse to acknowledge that change are the ones who are getting caught and are surprised.

But that’s no excuse. It’s like when people say, “You have to excuse grandpa’s racism, because he grew up in a separate era.” No, grandpa’s inability to change with society’s norms is inexcusable. Plenty of other people his age were able to adjust just fine.

And many men are surprised at these new revelations, because they have apparently never spoken to a woman before; every woman I know can give examples of where this has happened to them.

“But there’s so many!” they say. “We can’t just fire every man who has abused his power in a sexual manner!”

I’ve seen some posters say “I don’t know why women who run into a Harvey Weinstein don’t just say ‘no’ or report him.”

For the same reason that a bunch of powerful, wealthy white men (senators and congressmen) are putting up with our Abuser-in-Chief. Look what happens to the people who say no. They are fired, mocked, publicly humiliated, demeaned, have their qualifications discredited, their character assassinated and get pilloried in the court of public opinion. 45s loyalists troll them on social media and in sympathetic news media. They’ll be cut out of lucrative deals and not invited to business and social events where important things happen and movers and shakers talk. Favors and contracts will be withheld. A whisper in an ear will close doors on new jobs or plum appointments. And while 45 may not swing a punch, we see plenty of angry sympathizers ready to escalate to violence with a hint of permission that are scary enough to make anyone hesitate to rock the boat.

This is how abusers work, whether it’s a small-town bully, a gaslighting boyfriend or an emotionally abusive father. The pattern against those who are targeted or who dare to speak out or say no is ignore, mock, discredit, isolate, demean, destroy.

Intimidation is abuse.

So if Congress can be intimidated by a master abuser, let’s not throw shade on young actors and actresses who knew that no one would have listened to them when they were ‘nobody’ against a powerful person who had the ability to destroy their lives.

Gail Z. Martin is a novelist who writes thrilling fantasy and science fiction adventures. her web page is here.

Keep exposing these nazis. Make their faces known, let people know where they work, make them lose their jobs.

No, it isn’t a first amendment issue. Look at it this way:

If you’re an employer and you have a far left employee, he or she may believe in universal health care and gay rights and maybe even communism if they’re way out there, and it’s very likely that will never come up at the job and won’t affect their employment in the slightest.

But if you have an alt-right nazi KKK member working for you, then they believe that people who aren’t like them are inferior, should be kept out of the country, should have no rights. And they’re probably going to be dealing with women and minorities and gays and immigrants in the job — and even your other employees. Their views absolutely affect not just their jobs but your reputation as an employer. How can a black person or a gay person or a Jewish person expect to be treated with respect from your business when you have people like that working there?

So yes. Expose them. Make them realize there are consequences to their hatred.

This is Peter Cvjetanovic. He’s a student at the University of Nevada.

These devout Christians, you may recall, went all the ways to the Supreme Court to fight for their right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees because of their strongly held religious beliefs. And then the Court made one of the worst decisions in its history by deciding that corporations could have religious beliefs and discriminate based on those beliefs.

Well, not surprisingly, like many (if not most) Christians, they only care about some of the things their religion tells them. Stealing and lying — both clearly prohibited by their Ten Commandments, doesn’t seem to apply to them. Contraception — not mentioned anywhere in the Bible — well, that’s different.

Picking and choosing what religious laws you want to follow is nothing new, but the hypocrisy here is overwhelming.

To make matters worse, these artifacts were stolen in Iraq, and most likely stolen by agents of ISIS, so Hobby Lobby should now be categorized as a terrorist supporter, and the leaders of that organization should face serious criminal penalties. I mean, after all, I’ve represented people in my law practice who were stealing a few dozen dollars worth of stuff from WalMart who are now sitting in jail. Surely someone who violates the law and steals millions should be treated worse.

Look, I’m aware that conservatives have a reputation for ignoring facts when they get in the way of their world view — evolution and climate change aren’t real, trickle-down economics works, sexual orientation is a choice — but not only was Bill Clinton not convicted of perjury, he couldn’t be.

Yes, the House impeached him, because he lied about a consensual sexual affair he had with another adult. “Lying under oath is perjury!” they all scream. But no, it isn’t.

Perjury requires lying under oath about something relevant and material to a criminal investigation. If under oath you say your favorite color is blue when it’s really yellow, you’ve lied — but if your favorite color has nothing to do with a crime, then you haven’t committed perjury.

Adultery is not illegal. There was no “criminal investigation.” Republicans investigated both Clintons, over and over again, trying to find something — anything — they could get them on, and this was the only thing they could come up with. And impeachment doesn’t require anything more than enough politicians willing to impeach you.

Bill Clinton was never charged with perjury. No DA would file such frivolous charges, since clearly he hadn’t committed a crime. Is he a liar? Oh, absolutely. But he lied about something that really isn’t our business.

Meanwhile, Trump pretty much admits to Obstruction of Justice — an actual, real crime that has huge impact on our legal system — and Republicans yawn. Since the GOP controlled the House under Clinton and Trump, and since they happily went after Clinton for his alleged non-crime, then surely they should be bringing impeachment charges against Trump for something much more severe right?

What? They’re not? Why, that would mean that they’re a bunch of lying hypocrites who are placing party above country!

(NOTE: I know Bill Clinton is old news, but people keep bringing it up to distract from Trump. So feel free to bookmark this and send it to your Republican friends when they bring it up.

Many civil libertarians are upset about the robot that was used to blow up the Dallas sniper. And I can kind of understand the concerns. We don’t want police blowing up people using robots, acting as judge, jury and executioner; we want people captured so they can face justice.

But you know, sometimes you can’t capture people.

Micah Johnson killed cops. He wanted to kill more. He knew he was surrounded and knew that if he surrendered, he’d be getting the death penalty (This is Texas, after all). What would a few more cop deaths matter? His goal was to lure the cops in and hopefully take a few more down before he died.

So if I have the choice between risking the life of a cop (hell, of any human being) and that of a robot, then bye-bye, Daneel Olivaw*.

The robot is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good things and for evil things. I don’t disagree with the police’s use of the robot here.

Like this:

Post navigation

Politics, Society, Religion, and All the Stuff We're Not Supposed to Discuss in Polite Company: Michael A. Ventrella's Quest for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

More Believable than the Last Election

“'Bloodsuckers: A Vampire Runs for President' is a delicious blend of mainstream thriller, oddball horror, and biting social commentary. Sink your teeth into this one!” – Jonathan Maberry, New York Times bestselling author of Code Zero and V-Wars